From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: empty-directory predicate, native implementation Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 14:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <83y2ka18t7.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2kaj799.fsf@gmx.de> <83blh60wgr.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7qxjh7g.fsf@gmx.de> <878sc8kgy8.fsf@gmx.de> <87imbcls71.fsf@gmx.de> <83eem0zt0b.fsf@gnu.org> <87k0vsrd6m.fsf@gmx.de> <83a6wozs7h.fsf@gnu.org> <87sgafq2e2.fsf@gmx.de> <87h7qvptm3.fsf@gmx.de> <871rhxp8we.fsf@gmx.de> <237bd21b-96c7-4433-a5bc-34b64a9f4250@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2344"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Michael Albinus , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Arthur Miller Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 17 23:28:53 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kTtky-0000VL-S6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 23:28:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36474 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTtkx-0007hM-V3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 17:28:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTtjc-00073N-Hw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 17:27:28 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:48190) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kTtjY-0002Es-16; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 17:27:28 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09HLLnke068342; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 21:27:19 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=SszGnYLaa+IRru3jurqxx+WytXlKq4pKn7KIMeOyLL8=; b=ApQY3J6DA60+4NJboRJpOtAn/RNo2vBVLmi5Y3V5WMJIeVXlmKqUjFGJCZMkYvV7STz7 miCFiP+Hs5+4R9KXukFsRNLeQKgvPaBhtwy3BXZvRTcTh0PzXXf4mMsxXG7PDAOdnwKz GsFxfas3S/mtqkByBQaekdKhZ7em4lKjwvm7S/AWsZc9tqOTP5o2cB57sOU4t9smVOgr CB/R+89uz29AkqkaiGI/p7c7VbVoQthxgsMh4FTlW5dKx/3iLpV+ZEOD7jzTaFODdSfi +N+pPaK1TrFqzrmy7HTRc4782lalaU15UXx9VMyFWx6NsLWDxyx6Q33LPJYJKzBLWK8v pw== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 347s8mh9cw-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 17 Oct 2020 21:27:19 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09HLPNaw022381; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 21:27:19 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0121.oracle.com (aserv0121.oracle.com [141.146.126.235]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 347nqs5t27-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 17 Oct 2020 21:27:19 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0013.oracle.com (abhmp0013.oracle.com [141.146.116.19]) by aserv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 09HLRHeu009999; Sat, 17 Oct 2020 21:27:17 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5056.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9777 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 bulkscore=0 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010170156 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9777 signatures=668682 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 spamscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 malwarescore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010170155 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.85; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/17 17:18:26 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:257974 Archived-At: > > Sorry I'm coming to this late. It's a long thread, > > and I've only checked your patch, not the messages. > > > > I don't understand why we would do this. Is the > > real aim to be able to have an empty-directory > > predicate, i.e., to be able to see if there are > > no files in a directory? > > I would just like to add to the previous mail; that this optimisation > really does not matter on very first call... Believe me, I'm not trying to second-guess any implementation. I haven't (and won't) look at the C code, and I'm not very qualified to do so anyway. I was guessing that COUNT =3D 1 would be quicker for an emptiness check than COUNT > 1 (e.g. COUNT =3D 80000). But my argument wasn't about implementation or efficiency. Even if, for some reason, C had to "get" (info about) all of the files in the directory, just to determine whether the dir is empty, my argument would be the same wrt Lisp: have a separate predicate, or have a Boolean new parameter, instead of having a COUNT new parameter.